It is known in the textile industry to produce fire resistant products for use in upholstered furniture, mattresses, pillows, bedspreads, comforters, quilts, mattress pads, automotive seating, public transportation seating, aircraft seating and the like, using woven, needlepunched or spunlace nonwoven or knit fabrics formed of natural or synthetic fibers, and then treating these fabrics with fire retarding chemicals. Conventional fire retarding (FR) chemicals include halogen-based, phosphorus-based and/or antimony-based chemicals. Unfortunately, such treated fabrics are heavier than similar types of non-fire retardant fabrics, and have reduced wear life. Although FR chemically treated fabrics will self-extinguish and exhibit limited melt behavior when a flame is removed, they do not perform well as a flame barrier against large direct flame assaults for even short periods of time. Typically FR chemically treated fabrics form brittle chars, shrink and crack open after a short exposure to a direct flame. This exposes the underlying material (e.g., polyester fiberfill and/or polyurethane foam), in a composite article, to the open flame. This fabric cracking and shrinking behavior may allow the underlying materials to ignite. When these fabrics made with FR treated cotton, FR polyester and other FR treated fabrics are used in composite articles such as upholstered furniture and mattresses, these composite articles are deemed unsuited for passing the more stringent open flame tests such as: California Test Bulletin 133 (January 1991) (Cal TB133), California Test Bulletin 129 “Flammability Test Procedure for Mattresses for use in Public Buildings”, (October 1992) (Cal TB129) and British Standard 5852—Crib 5 (August 1982) (BS5852) without the use of additional flame barrier or FR backcoating materials.
Some of the flame barrier fabrics currently being used with the goal to pass the more stringent open flame tests, such as Cal TB129 and Cal TB133 include:    1) A woven polymer coated 100% fiberglass flame barrier (Sandel® Fabric, Sandel International Inc.)    2) A woven or knit core-spun yarn based flame barrier, where natural and/or synthetic fibers are wrapped around a multifilament fiberglass core and then optionally treated with FR chemicals and/or a coating of thermoplastic polyvinyl halide composition, such as polyvinyl chloride (Firegard® Seating Barriers, Intek; Firegard® Brand Products, Chiquola Fabrics, LLC)    3) A nonwoven hydroentangled spunlace flame barrier made of 100% p-aramid (Thermablock™ Kevlar® Z-11, DuPont Company).    4) A woven or knit core-spun yarn based flame barrier where natural and/or synthetic fibers are wrapped around a multifilament and/or spun p-aramid core yarn and then optionally treated with FR chemicals and/or a coating of thermoplastic polyvinyl halide composition, such as polyvinyl chloride (Firegard® Seating Barriers, Intek; Firegard® Brand Products, Chiquola Fabrics, LLC)
The disadvantages of the above mentioned flame barrier solutions for more stringent open-flame applications in mattresses, upholstered furniture and other fiber-filled applications include:                a) Woven flame barriers, especially when coated with FR materials, impart a stiff “hand” to the composite article, which negatively affect the feel of the final product.        b) Prior art woven, nonwoven and knit flame barriers must be either laminated to the decorative fabric or double upholstered during manufacturing. This increases the number and complication of the dress cover fabrics, thereby increasing manufacturing costs.        c) 100% fiberglass flame barriers have poor durability due to glass-to-glass abrasion.        d) Woven and knit flame barriers made with natural fiber wrapped core-spun yarns must be made in heavy weight constructions (i.e. ˜10 opsy or 336 g/m2) to be effective flame barriers, and can negatively affect the feel of the composite article.        e) Natural fiber wrapped core-spun yarn fabrics require additional FR chemical treatments and/or coatings of a thermoplastic polyvinyl halide composition, such as polyvinyl chloride to be effective in passing the more stringent open-flame tests. This negatively impacts the workplace by having to handle these chemicals and increases the exposure of chemicals to the consumer who uses the composite article.        f) Hydroentangled nonwoven spunlace flame barriers, containing significant amounts of p-aramid fibers, impart a yellow color to the flame barrier and negatively effect the look of the composite article, especially when used directly under white or light-colored decorative upholstery and/or mattress ticking fabrics.        g) Woven and knit flame barriers add a significant cost to the composite article because they require a yarn formation step, which is eliminated in the formation of a nonwoven flame barrier of the invention.        